Die Typen Der Vogelsammlung Des Naturhistorischen Museums Wien. Teil I. Nonpasseres
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
©Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, download unter www.biologiezentrum.at Kataloge der wissenschaftlichen Sammlungen des Naturhistorischen Museums in Wien Band 20 Aves, Heft 1 Die Typen der Vogelsammlung des Naturhistorischen Museums Wien. Teil I. Nonpasseres. H. Schifter, E. Bauemfeind & Th. Schifter Naturhistorisches Museum Wien 2007 ISBN 978-3-902421-12-6 ©Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, download unter www.biologiezentrum.at Schifter H., Bauernfeind E. & Schifter Th., 2007: Die Typen der Vogelsammlung des Naturhistorischen Museums Wien. Teil I. Nonpasseres. - Kataloge der wissenschaftlichen Sammlungen des Naturhistorischen Museums in Wien 20, Aves, Heft 1. Copyright © 2007 Naturhistorisches Museum Wien Alle Rechte Vorbehalten ISBN 978-3-902421-12-6 Layout: Ernst Vitek & Martin Vitek Layout Umschlag: Josef Muhsil Druck: Ferdinand Berger& Söhne GmbH, 3580 Horn Umschlagbild: Trochilus Regis Sch reibers, 1833 Collectanea ad Faunam Brasiliae Fase. I, Tab. I, Fig. 1 [Sandler del.]; ad text p. 234. ©Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, download unter www.biologiezentrum.at Inhalt Abstract 7 Einleitung & Geschichte 11 Umfang & Methodik 14 Tabellarische Zusammenstellung der Typen 30 Dank 32 Verzeichnis der Typen 33 Tinamidae 33 Diomedeidae 39 Procellariidae 40 Hydrobatidae 41 Podicipedidae 42 Phalacrocoracidae 42 Sulidae 44 Pelecanidae 44 Ardeidae 45 Ciconiidae 49 Threskiornithidae 51 Anatidae 53 Cathartidae 59 Accipitridae 61 Falconidae 78 Megapodiidae 84 Cracidae 85 Phasianidae 91 Tumicidae 108 Gruidae 109 Psophiidae 109 Rallidae 111 Rhynochetidae 121 Otididae 121 Jacanidae 122 Rostratulidae 122 6 Charadriidae 123 ©NaturhistorischesScolopacidae Museum Wien, download unter www.biologiezentrum.at 125 Recurvirostridae 131 Burhinidae 131 Glareolidae 132 Laridae 133 Stemidae 135 Rhynchopidae 139 Alcidae 139 Pteroclididae 142 Columbidae 144 Psittacidae 159 Musophagidae 181 Cuculidae 182 Tytonidae 189 Strigidae 189 Podargidae 199 Aegothelidae 200 Caprimulgidae 202 Apodidae 211 Hemiprocnidae 215 Trochilidae 216 Coliidae 237 Trogonidae 238 Alcedinidae 242 Todidae 246 Momotidae 247 Meropidae 248 Coraciidae 250 Upupidae 250 Galbulidae 251 Bucconidae 252 Capitonidae 258 Indicatoridae 268 Ramphastidae 269 Picidae 276 Literatur 307 Index 346 Abbildungsteil 20 - 29, 101 - 108 (Farbe) ©Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, downloadAbstract unter www.biologiezentrum.at Type-specimens in the Bird Collection of the Natural History Museum Vienna. Part 1. Nonpasseres. An annotated list of type-specimens in the Bird Collection of the Natural History Museum Vienna is provided for the first time since the preliminary (and meanwhile outdated) compilation by Pelzeln & Lorenz (1886-1888). Part 1 covers all extant non-passeriform bird families (i.e., Tinamidae to Picidae). Included are all type-specimens in the sense of ICZN (1999) art. 72.1., as well as all specimens recorded by Pelzeln & Lorenz (I.e.). Additionally some taxa have been included where information on the type- specimens bears close reference to the Vienna collection. Syntypes known to have been exchanged with other institutions are listed together with their pre sent location (as far as the latter could be traced). In total 682 type-specimens (for 351 taxa) are listed in the present study together with full bibliographic references. Introductory and technical remarks To facilitate investigations for colleagues less familiar with the use of the German language entries have been standardized as far as possible. Coverage, methods and data arrangement are explained below. For practical reasons the arrangement of families, species and subspecies fol lows the sequence adopted in volumes I-XV of the Check List of Birds of the World (Peters 1931-1987). Families and their authors are quoted from Bock (1994) if not indicated otherwise. All entries concerning type-specimens are arranged according to the follo wing standard: Name. The name [in italics] of the taxon given in strictly original spelling (ICZN 1999 art. 31.1.3.) A u th o r ( s) [capitalized] and year of publication Citation [abbreviated; full bibliographic reference under „References“ p. 307 - 345) Type locality (in brackets) as originally given in the description [subsequent ©Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, download unter www.biologiezentrum.at restrictions or comments in square brackets] Synonyms , nomina nuda and manuscript names are provided if they are of interest concerning the type status of the specimen in question. Valid name [if not indicated otherwise nomenclature follows Peters (1931- 1987)] Status (following ICZN 1999 art. 72.1.) Specimen data Inventory number, preparation (in brackets, see abbreviations), sex (d* / 9 as indicated on label), age (as indicated on label), locality (as indicated on label; [geographical coordinates and remarks optional, in square brackets]), collec tor, collectors number / field number (when extant), origin / provenance, way of acquisition (,,Kauf‘ = purchase, „Tausch“ = exchange, „Geschenk“ = donation), year of acquisition, acquisition number. [Specimen data have been literally transcribed from the original label / field label (if extant). Whenever possible, incomplete label data have been com pleted from the original entry in the acquisition book or any other original documents available, e.g. the sale list or an accompagnying letter. Various synonymic expressions and abbreviations, however, have been standardized: for example, for „ f‘, „fern.“, „foemina“, „Weibchen“, „weiblich“, „w“ the signature $ has been used throughout.] Annotations In the annotations following the specimen data additional information is pro vided whenever necessary, and evidence for the type status is discussed in detail. Essential parts of the original description are quoted verbally to explain decisions about the type material (number of specimens, location of type material a.o.). Subsequent designations (whether valid or invalid under the present code) and status given in Pelzeln & Lorenz (1886-1888), as well as location of material exchanged with other institutions are discussed. Verbal quotations are given under „quotation marks“, remarks by the authors of the present study are indicated by [square brackets]. Probable or presumed lectotypifications by various authors in the past have been interpreted differently in modem type lists. This represents a rather 9 serious problem and may influence future nomenclature considerably. Faunistic lists©Naturhistorisches and listings Museum of Wien, collection download unter holdings www.biologiezentrum.at (both including taxonomic background as a matter of course) often contain expressions like „type exa mined“ or „type in XXX collection“ (e.g. by Bonaparte, Salvadori, Schlegel, Salvin, Hellmayr, Hartert a.o.), which in our opinion just served as a state ment that the author had consulted a „typical“ specimen sensu lato. Indications like that obviously provide no clue, whether the compiling author considered the particular specimen a syntype or a holotype - and may certain ly not be interpreted as a valid lectotype designation under the present code. Surely it must be taken into consideration that the understanding of the term „type“ has undergone considerable changes during time. When Schlegel mentioned „type“ in his catalogue of specimens in the Museum Pays-Bas, he usually only considered specimens that had been used for the respective pla tes - even when Temminck's original description exactly specified which spe cimens formed the basis for his taxon. This interpretation was quite common in Schlegels' days, but if we accept this as a valid lectotypification it is most probable that we totally misinterpret Schlegel's intentions (and the sense of the present code). If the original description (which was in many similar cases probably not even consulted) reveals clearly that the taxon was based on more than one specimen, any valid designation of a lectotype („the type“ before 1999) should have included a discussion of the fate and status of the remaining syntypes (cf. ICZN art. 74.5. subsequent use of the term holo type / the type). In our opinion the crucial points are „selection“ and „designation“ - i.e. did the revisor in fact try to select a particular specimen after investigating the original type series, or was he just satisfied to have seen one (of more) typi cal specimens. In all cases when the interpretation remained doubtful we have maintained the use of syntypes rather than accepted a lectotype. A type list has first of all to provide collection-related background informa tion concerning a specimens' individual history, which is usually not availa ble for any taxonomist not thoroughly familiar with the collection in ques tion. These informations should form a serious basis for the eventually sub sequent selection of a lectotype by any specialist for a genus (or group of genera), if there is any taxonomic necessity (ICZN 1999 art. 74.7.3.). Therefore we have deliberately refrained from designating any lectotypes in the present list, because we are personally convinced that lectotypes should be designated only in close connection with the purely taxonomic revision of a small group. ©Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, download unter www.biologiezentrum.at 10 General aspects of documentation Many of the type specimens in our collection originate from the 19th and early 20th century, when field labels, specimen numbers, inventories and type designations [original designation ICZN (1999) 73.1.1.] were little used or even unknown. External evidence, published or unpublished,